Dismissed

Yellavula Paparao v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Apr 2023WP/7535/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ of mandamus under Article 226 challenging an ejectment order made by the Tribal Welfare Collector was dismissed as theAppeal was pending. The High Court directed the appellate authority to dispose of the stay application within three months and maintained status quo pending that decision.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent to dispose of appeal/stay application within 3 months; status quo maintained in the meantime.

Yellavula Paparao Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH^{DAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J^SREENIVASRAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 7535 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Yellavula Paparao, S/o. Late Lingaiah, aged-60yrs, Occ- Agrrculture, R/o. Hemachandrapuram, Laxmidevipalli Mandal, Badradri Kothagudem District

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The District Collector, cum Agent to the Government Badradri Kothagudem District at Kothagudem.

¶13

3 The Addl Agent to the Government cum project officer, cum ITDA Badradri Kothagudem District at Bhadrachalam

¶14

4 The special Deputy collector (TW), Badrachalam, Badradri Kothagudem. Tahsildar, Laxmidevipalli Mandal, Badradri Kothagudem District

¶15

b Vankudoth Harisingh, S/o. Sukya, aged 76 yrs, Occ- agriculture, R/o. H.No.74-7/ 1 , Medarc Basthi, Kothagudem, Badradri Kothagudem District.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus, declaring the order in LTR. Case. No.23 of 2022 /LDP, dated 28-02-2023 passed by the iespdoent. No.4 as illegal arbitrary against the principals of natural justice in contrary to the Sec. 3(1 ) of Land Transfer Regulation Act 1 of 1959, amended Act 1 of 70. Consequently to suspend the operation of the LTR. Case. No. 23 ot 2022 /LDP. dated 28-02-2023 of 4th

¶18

respondent, pending disposal of the appeal^{at 3rd respondent, pendingdisposal of} the writ^petition.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶20

Petition under section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Court may be pleased to} suspend the operation^{of the LTR. Case No. 23 of 2022/LDP, dated 28-02-2023} of 4th respondent,^{pending disposalof the appealat 3rd respondent,pending} disposal of the writ Petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SMT.T. PUSHA RANI REPRESENTING} SRI. CHALAKANI^{VENKAT YADAV}

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1 to 4: ASSISTANT GP FORSOCIAL} WELFARE

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent^{No. 5: ASSISTANT GP FOR REVENUE} Counsel forthe Respondent^{No.6: SRl.JOGRAM TEJAVAT}

¶24

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶25

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO

¶26

W.P.No.7535 of 2023

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This writ petition is filed seeking Writ of Mandamus declaring the order in LTR.Case.No.23 of 2022/LDP, dated 28.02.2023, passed by the respondent No.4 as illegal, arbitrary against the principles of natural justice in contrary to the Section 3(1) of Land Transfer Regulation Act 1 of 1959, amended Act 1 of 1970.

¶29

Heard Smt. T. Pushpa Rani, iearned counsel representing Sri Chalakani Vcnkat Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government pleader for Tribal Welfare appearing for respondents No.1 to 4, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.5 and Sri Jogram Tejavat, learned counsel appearing for rcspondent No.6. 3. Learned counsel lor the petitioner contends that the respondent No.6 filed LTR.Case.No.23 ol 2022/LDp, dated 28.O2.2023 involving provisions of Telangana State

¶30

¶31

lr I I I I !

¶32

Scheduled Arcas Land Transfer Regr.rlation, 1959, amended Act 1 of 1970 read r.r'ith Andhra Pradesh State Scheduled iand Transfer rulcs 1969 hereinafter calling brevity regulatiorrs rLgainst the petitioner in respect of the subject land of Ac ll'O0 gts in Sv.No.264/Il29l/A, situated at Hemachan drap u ram^(lram panchayath, Karukonda^Village, Laxmidevipalii Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. 4. Tl-re 41^, rcspondetrt without properly considering contcnl-ions rrl thc petitiortcr passed ejectment order^on 28.02.2023. Aggricverl b.r' the said order, the^petitioner fiied ar-r irlrperrl bclore tl-rc respondent No.3 on^14.O3.2023, along s'ith tl-r,: said a1;pcal the petitioner^{filed Interlocutory} Application si:ckir.tg stav of the order of the^respondent No.3. TI.re Appellatc Autl-rority has not^passed order in^the stav pctition. ln thc mcatru,hile, the respondent^{Nos.5 and} 6 are tryir-rg to disposscss the^petitioner from^{the schedule} lancl. Henc:e, t l'rc ltetitioner tiled the^{presentwrit petition.} 5. 'l'he lcarrrrcd coutrsel appearing for the respondellts submrts thirt tht: p('titronL'r hzrs already filed appeal before tl-rc respondcnt No.3 aggricved by the impugned order

¶33

¶34

passed by the respondent No.4, the petitioner is not entitled to question the very same order before this Court, and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable und er lau' and the same is liable to be dismi ssed.

¶35

¶36

)

¶37

Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after going through the records, it clearll, reveals that the respondent No.4 passed the ejectment order or-r 28.O2.2023 against the subject property. Questior.ring the said order, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the respondent No.3 on l4-O3-2O23 along with suspension petition and the sarne are pending.

¶38

Without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.3 to dispose of thc stay/suspension application or main appeal within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving opportunity to the petitioner as u'ell as the respondent No.6. Till such

¶39

J..3

¶40

¶41

time, both the parties are directed to maintain status quo,

¶42

in respect o1' the subject properfy

¶43

U. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There

¶44

shall be no order as to costs

¶45

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending ir-r this ',r'rit

¶46

petition, shall also stand closed.

¶47

To,

¶48

SD/.T.JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE coPY/'

¶49

aEcrtoN drptcen

¶50

1 The Principal Secretary,^{Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat' The State of} Telangana, HYderabad.

¶51

2 The Districi c-ollector,^{cumAgent to the Government Badradri Kothagudem} District at Kothagudem.

¶52

3 in" [aJr no"niirr the^{Government cum proiect officer, cum ITDA Badradri} Korhaor rdeil District at Bhadrachalam

¶53

4 i'rr. .J""ri O"Jutv coitector^{(TW), Badrachalam' Badradri Kothagudem} i;;tili;;, Laxrfi iotivipalli^{Maridal,Badradri Kothagud-em District}

¶54

6 o"" CC tb-sr.i.^{Crratht<aniVenkat Yadav, AQyocgle [OPUC]} 7 Onu CC to Sri Jogram^{Tejavat,Advocate IOPUCI} i;; aC; tt cp ttr^{nevehue,'High Court fbr Stati: of Telangana'.[oUT]} 8I i;; Ca; io ci^{roi social Welfar6, High Court for the Stateof Telangana} tourl

1 0. Two CD Copies

TJ SW

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 110412023

ORDER

WP.No.7535 of 2023

)- ,,{
i:l $
,/'.:-
I r,.
I Il !t:i i',^.t !
llt..
/

¶63

DISPOSING OF^{THE WRIT PETITION}

¶64

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶65

Yellavula Paparao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yellavula Paparao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikesh Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Gitte Namdev Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

M/s. Seghani Agro Tech Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. Nagishettigari Kashiram Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Mudiraj Matsya Paresrameka Singam Vs The Assistant Director of Fisheries and Ex-Officio Deputy

Nalluri Ramakrishna, Vs Government of a.P., repre., by its Principal Secretary